merits of this discussion (MR editorial, oil, and... marxist pedigree?!? )

Xenon Zi-Neng Yuan wenhuadageming at
Sun Nov 9 23:07:08 MST 2003

haughtiness (on the part of more than just dms, imho) aside, i personally
do think there remains much to be gained if participants in this debate
keep the focus of the discussion on essentials such as whether or not
petroleum (and natural gas) are like any other commodity - instead of
thrashing at each other.  as someone who is now working on more adequately
learning marxist political economy, i continue to follow this topic closely
whenever it rears its (ugly?) head on the list.  i'm sure there are plenty
others like me, lurking and reading along, who have taken much insight out
of it, but perhaps just wish that comrades would occasionally back away
from the keyboard and cool their heads/fingertips for a minute.  =P

i was wondering...  although it may be rehashing some stuff that's been
said before, could each side restate their positions with less of the
emotional baggage?  for example, could those more intimately familiar with
mark jones' analysis (louis?) please explain in detail once more (or point
to a previous post or articles) why the use-value of oil is so unique?  and
vice-versa?  it's _this_ that seems to be one of the fundamental
disagreements here, and not whether someone is either too detached from
praxis or his/her analysis is too "malthusian" and "un-marxist" - or am i


At 10:16 PM 11/9/2003 -0500, dmschanoes wrote:

>I leave it to the list participants to decide if the arguments I presented
>transcended self-aggrandizement and were for the "good of the list."

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list